ecologist88
Member
Has anyone read the Biotic Message by Walter Remine? He claims that Haldane's Dilemma is unanswered. Anyone know about this?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biotic Message by Walter Remine
- Thread starter ecologist88
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Haldane's Dilemma is a non-issue quite frankly. Since the 1950's we've learned a lot about genetics and how it works.
Genes are not always acted upon singly for example. Nor, is there a limit to how many alleles a population can have and remain viable.
Plus, we also now know that not all genes are equal (Haldane would have been operating under the old "one gene one protein" model) and some have much greater effects on the organism than others when they mutate.
Knowledge progresses as time moves on.
wa:do
Genes are not always acted upon singly for example. Nor, is there a limit to how many alleles a population can have and remain viable.
Plus, we also now know that not all genes are equal (Haldane would have been operating under the old "one gene one protein" model) and some have much greater effects on the organism than others when they mutate.
Knowledge progresses as time moves on.
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Here is one of several papers (this one from 2003) showing that "Haldane's Dilemma" is flawed.
http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185.pdf
wa:do
http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185.pdf
wa:do
Science For Creation
Member
Haldane's Dilemma has not been solved. For a good introduction go to CreationWiki.org, and see the topic "Haldane's Dilemma". ReMine wrote it.
dust1n
Zindīq
Or to see how irrelevant it truly is:
Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science For Creation
Member
The Wikipedia article on Haldane's Dilemma is a lasting shame on evolutionists. That article documents the evolutionists' continued attempt to obscure Haldane's Dilemma, rather than solve it. Evolutionists still have no agreed solution to Haldane's Dilemma. They merely obscure it away, and brush it aside prematurely. It is a scandal.
See for yourself. Compare the Wikipedia article with the CreationWiki.org article (written by ReMine).
Haldane's Dilemma has NOT been solved by computer simulation. There exists no computer simulation anywhere: (1) that "solves Haldane's Dilemma", and (2) which evolutionary geneticists themselves embrace as a realistic model of evolution in nature.
It is not honest to attack Haldane's assumptions as "unrealistic" when they are wildly unrealistic IN FAVOR of evolution.
Moreover, the evolutionists' computer simulations so far make wildly unrealistic assumptions IN FAVOR of evolution. There exists no computer simulation that solves Haldane's Dilemma.
See for yourself. Compare the Wikipedia article with the CreationWiki.org article (written by ReMine).
Haldane's Dilemma has NOT been solved by computer simulation. There exists no computer simulation anywhere: (1) that "solves Haldane's Dilemma", and (2) which evolutionary geneticists themselves embrace as a realistic model of evolution in nature.
It is not honest to attack Haldane's assumptions as "unrealistic" when they are wildly unrealistic IN FAVOR of evolution.
Moreover, the evolutionists' computer simulations so far make wildly unrealistic assumptions IN FAVOR of evolution. There exists no computer simulation that solves Haldane's Dilemma.
Wait, what? How is that in any way a dilemma? Every single generation has differences from the last (which is why breeding programs are so successful). There's more than enough time for small changes to come about, as can easily be observed in light-skinned people being born to full African ancestries. Heck, in Europe, we had dark skin until about 6000 years ago (light skin is better for absorbing Vitamin D from the Sun in low-Sunlight environments like in Northern Europe). That's not to say we would have gone extinct if we kept our dark skin (Far-North American Natives, I believe, kept their dark skin despite living in similar environments), but seeing as our dark skin was ultimately selected out, we were better off for it.
Heck, wanna see an example of natural selection right here in (semi)modern(-ish) times? European women (under which I include European-descended Americans) generally have bigger breasts than, say, Asian women. Why? Because that's what was preferred in these regions; women with the respective body types tended to be married off more, and thus had more children. Might sound like artificial selection rather than natural selection, but the same thing happened with Peacocks: 2000 years ago, male Peacocks didn't have the large, colorful tails they do now; they were selected in due to similar sexual preference.
For a less risque example, people around the Mediterranean 2000 years ago tended to be fairly petite. On the other hand, Roman writers described the Celtic and Germanic peoples as being quite massive. This makes sense; larger bulks were needed to survive the harsher winters, since their technological sophistication wasn't as high as that of the Romans. But look at people in Northern Europe today: under more Roman-style governments, they aren't exposed to the elements as much due to more sophisticated shelters, and so have slimmed down quite a lot (though humans in general have been getting steadily taller). This is only 2000 years.
One doesn't need to know biological terms or complex mathematics to see biological evolution in action right there in our own species, making this "dilemma" hardly a problem at all.
Heck, wanna see an example of natural selection right here in (semi)modern(-ish) times? European women (under which I include European-descended Americans) generally have bigger breasts than, say, Asian women. Why? Because that's what was preferred in these regions; women with the respective body types tended to be married off more, and thus had more children. Might sound like artificial selection rather than natural selection, but the same thing happened with Peacocks: 2000 years ago, male Peacocks didn't have the large, colorful tails they do now; they were selected in due to similar sexual preference.
For a less risque example, people around the Mediterranean 2000 years ago tended to be fairly petite. On the other hand, Roman writers described the Celtic and Germanic peoples as being quite massive. This makes sense; larger bulks were needed to survive the harsher winters, since their technological sophistication wasn't as high as that of the Romans. But look at people in Northern Europe today: under more Roman-style governments, they aren't exposed to the elements as much due to more sophisticated shelters, and so have slimmed down quite a lot (though humans in general have been getting steadily taller). This is only 2000 years.
One doesn't need to know biological terms or complex mathematics to see biological evolution in action right there in our own species, making this "dilemma" hardly a problem at all.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
From CB121: Haldane's Dilemma
Ref: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 1999
And: Haldane's Dilemma (response to Remine's book)
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
There isn't a dilemma. Haldane missed certain aspects of how evolution works, for instance that there's two parties partaking in sexual reproduction, not one. That's why sex won out in evolution, because it's more powerful and faster to produce genetic variation.
It doesn't even have to be solved by computer simulation since Haldane missed parts of how evolution works.
Or it's unrealistic to take a 60 year old research paper that contained errors as a fact or disproof of evolution.
Haldane's paper was a theoretical treatise, written in 1957. Not a proper research paper, and Haldane even ends with "To conclude, I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision. But I am convinced that quantitative arguments of the kind here put forward should play a part in all future discussions of evolution."
So how about it? If Haldane is "God" in this "proof" against evolution, then why not take his own words for that it probably needs drastic revisions?
Besides, Nunney revisited the equations in 2003 and found that Haldane was off. Evolution speeds up in larger populations.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Remine didn't read Haldane's conclusion then.
Science For Creation
Member
Riverwolf's post is an example of how evolutionists create confusion, and allow it to thrive, so as to brush aside Haldane's Dilemma prematurely. They have not solved Haldane's Dilemma. They only confused it away. That practice continues.
Seeing "biological evolution in action" is not the issue. Haldane's Dilemma is the issue, and evolutionists have not solved it.
Seeing "biological evolution in action" is not the issue. Haldane's Dilemma is the issue, and evolutionists have not solved it.
Science For Creation
Member
That's an error. Haldane's analysis included sexual reproduction.
A computer simulation might potential provide an avenue for solving Haldane's Dilemma. Unfortunately, when using realistic parameters (for reproduction rates, harmful mutation rate, beneficial mutation rates, etc) all the computer simulations -- including those written by evolutionists -- confirm the problem. There exists no biologically realistic computer simulation that solves Haldane's Dilemma. (Evolutionary geneticists do not embrace Nunney's simulation as biologically realistic.)
Again, evolutionists are promoting confusion, rather than actually solving Haldane's Dilemma. The fact that Haldane's paper was written in 1957 is not an excuse to brush it aside. As I said, all of Haldane's assumptions were wildly IN FAVOR of evolution, and consistent with modern evolutionary textbooks. You cannot get around the problem by claiming it is old.
Yes, Haldane was exactly correct that "quantitative arguments of the kind here put forward should play a part in all future discussions of evolution." Evolutionists are quite welcome to make "drastic revisions" to the argument, in order to clarify it, for example. They have scarcely done so. Instead they allow confusion to thrive.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yes, but incorrectly.
"Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.). "
CB121: Haldane's Dilemma
And according Nunney, soft selection eliminates the problem of the cost. He even states that it's clear from his calculations. So the problem is rather, was it hard or soft selection in play in human-ape past? There are no calculations that can figure that out.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Since we share over 20 ERVs and hundreds of unique transposons with chimpanzees, we have to be related, so solely based on that, we have to conclude that there's something missing from the "dilemma" that is forcing the it to become a dilemma when it really isn't. (like parallel instead of serial mutation rate, which increases in speed in larger populations as Nunney discovered.)
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
For anyone who is honestly serious about reading the response and rebuttal of the "dilemma" can read this article: Haldane's non-dilemma - The Panda's Thumb
Science For Creation
Member
His argument is essentially, 'Evolution is a fact, therefore there is no dilemma. Rather, there must be something missing from our understanding [of evolutionary genetics]'.
In other words, there remains an unresolved contradiction within the field of evolutionary genetics. Haldane's Dilemma remains unsolved, just as ReMine claims.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I don't think you read the other articles that I linked to.
Science For Creation
Member
Haldane's analysis correctly included sexual reproduction. His analysis also included the selection model still predominant in evolutionary genetics textbooks today. (That is, he did not employ truncation selection.) The combination of those two things -- sexual reproduction and the selection model still predominant in evolutionary genetics textbooks -- gave the following result: The average rate of beneficial substitutions is not changed by having the substitutions occur sequentially (non-overlapping in time) versus simultaneously (overlapping in time). Haldane did not "assume" this result, rather it is a result of the above listed facts. The talk.origins article (CB121) is mistaken on this point.
The talk.origins article (CB121) states:
That is false. Haldane did not "assume" it, rather that is a result of the calculations. And it remains a valid result, under the selection model he used.
The talk.origins article (CB121) continues:
Again, that is false.
Haldane already included sexual recombination, and he included it correctly. The key issue is the selection model.
Here is the problem: In a (false) attempt to solve Haldane's Dilemma, evolutionists frequently use selection models that are unrealistic. They use selection models such as truncation selection, for example, which evolutionary geneticists know is unrealistic.
The talk.origins article (CB121) continues:
Again, that article is mistaken. The cost of substitution never "disappears". Rather, the cost of substitution can theoretically be reduced somewhat, by assuming unrealistic selection models -- but the cost never disappears.
Here is the conundrum that evolutionists must face: They offer "solutions" to Haldane's Dilemma built on peculiar selection models -- but they fail to embrace those same selection models as predominant and realistic. In effect, to "solve" Haldane's Dilemma, they offer a peculiar selection model -- and they abandon that same selection model in all further discussions of evolution. In other words, they have not solved Haldane's Dilemma, just as ReMine claims.
There's nothing to solve. One change is all that's needed for survival. How can you solve a problem that literally doesn't exist?
We're not the ones creating confusion; we're trying to clarify any confusion, especially the kind that comes from poor understandings of, yet continued focus on, genetics and mathematics.
Besides, if evolution is right there and observable, then it absolutely DOES happen. Any dilemmas then would simply be about understanding it better, not whether or not it happens.
Being bipedal provided ONE, very subtle advantage, but it's surely what allowed the hominid line to continue.
Besides, evolution is reactionary. Something is beneficial if a mutation provides for better survival in a given environment. In a static environment, there's no need for change, and so there would be very little change. In a constantly-changing environment, even the smallest change (difference between being naturally large or small with the same amount of food) can mean survival or extinction. And as I said, every generation has traits different from the previous one.
Last edited:
Science For Creation
Member
We've been referred to a article on another website. The article is called "Haldane's non-dilemma - The Panda's Thumb" written by Ian Musgrave.
That article begins with several misleading assertions. But there is an extremely important portion of the article, beginning after the half-way point, where it says, "How many beneficial mutations?" Or more appropriately, How many beneficial substitutions does it take to transform our ape-like ancestor (ten million years ago) into a human?
The article pretends that evolutionary geneticists have agreement on the answer (say, a ballpark figure) -- when they have not remotely arrived at any such agreement. This issue (central to Haldane's Dilemma) remains grossly under-discussed.
The article further pretends there is a long history (since 1957) of evolutionists grappling with this central issue: How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient? There exists little history of it in the literature. The little discussion was almost always given cryptically, and effectively concealed the size of the problem. The discussions typically refer to "substitutions per generation" For example, "six substitutions per generation." That handling effectively hid the problem for sixty years. With such handling, the general public (and even evolutionary geneticists) could not tell if there was a problem, or not. The magnitude of the problem could not be seen. They should have been explicitly discussing "How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient?" But such discussion scarcely occurred. The article pretends that such discussion was robust and engaging, when it wasn't.
The article makes a limp attempt at addressing the central issue: How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient? But it makes several key mistakes, outlined here.
1) The key issue is not the difference between modern chimps and modern humans. Rather, the issue is the number of beneficial substitutions needed to create a human from some plausible ape-like ancestor (ten million years ago, or some other suitable starting point).
2) The tally must include all the required beneficial substitutions. The article dramatically miscalculates (and under-estimates) the number required.
For example, to change a given gene from starting-point (ape) to ending-point (human) might well require hundreds of beneficial substitutions, not just one. The article assumes just one substitution is required, on average. If a given gene requires separately, say, one insertion, two deletions, three point mutations, and four relocations within the genome, then, in this example, it would require at least ten beneficial substitutions. The article completely failed to include these.
As another example, the article treated "regulatory genes" as a separate issue, separate from those that code for proteins. But they are essentially the same to Haldane's Dilemma. If they are beneficial substitutions, then they are limited by Haldane's Dilemma. They must be tallied in the total number required.
The article did not calculate the total number of beneficial substitutions required. Rather, it employed mischievous means to underestimate the total required.
That article is a fair step forward, by addressing the central issue. But the article does not represent the evolutionary literature, where this issue is scarcely discussed at all, and especially rarely in explicit terms. Instead, for sixty years, evolutionists claimed Haldane's Dilemma was "solved". As ReMine says, Haldane's Dilemma is a scandal.
That article begins with several misleading assertions. But there is an extremely important portion of the article, beginning after the half-way point, where it says, "How many beneficial mutations?" Or more appropriately, How many beneficial substitutions does it take to transform our ape-like ancestor (ten million years ago) into a human?
The article pretends that evolutionary geneticists have agreement on the answer (say, a ballpark figure) -- when they have not remotely arrived at any such agreement. This issue (central to Haldane's Dilemma) remains grossly under-discussed.
The article further pretends there is a long history (since 1957) of evolutionists grappling with this central issue: How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient? There exists little history of it in the literature. The little discussion was almost always given cryptically, and effectively concealed the size of the problem. The discussions typically refer to "substitutions per generation" For example, "six substitutions per generation." That handling effectively hid the problem for sixty years. With such handling, the general public (and even evolutionary geneticists) could not tell if there was a problem, or not. The magnitude of the problem could not be seen. They should have been explicitly discussing "How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient?" But such discussion scarcely occurred. The article pretends that such discussion was robust and engaging, when it wasn't.
The article makes a limp attempt at addressing the central issue: How many beneficial substitutions is sufficient? But it makes several key mistakes, outlined here.
1) The key issue is not the difference between modern chimps and modern humans. Rather, the issue is the number of beneficial substitutions needed to create a human from some plausible ape-like ancestor (ten million years ago, or some other suitable starting point).
2) The tally must include all the required beneficial substitutions. The article dramatically miscalculates (and under-estimates) the number required.
For example, to change a given gene from starting-point (ape) to ending-point (human) might well require hundreds of beneficial substitutions, not just one. The article assumes just one substitution is required, on average. If a given gene requires separately, say, one insertion, two deletions, three point mutations, and four relocations within the genome, then, in this example, it would require at least ten beneficial substitutions. The article completely failed to include these.
As another example, the article treated "regulatory genes" as a separate issue, separate from those that code for proteins. But they are essentially the same to Haldane's Dilemma. If they are beneficial substitutions, then they are limited by Haldane's Dilemma. They must be tallied in the total number required.
The article did not calculate the total number of beneficial substitutions required. Rather, it employed mischievous means to underestimate the total required.
That article is a fair step forward, by addressing the central issue. But the article does not represent the evolutionary literature, where this issue is scarcely discussed at all, and especially rarely in explicit terms. Instead, for sixty years, evolutionists claimed Haldane's Dilemma was "solved". As ReMine says, Haldane's Dilemma is a scandal.